BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1827
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 3, 2004
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
Jerome Horton, Chair
AB 1827 (Cohn) - As Amended: March 15, 2004
SUBJECT : Closed Sessions: state audits.
SUMMARY : Creates a new exception to both state and local
government open meeting laws that would allow state and local
government bodies to meet in closed session for the purpose of
discussing a confidential final draft audit report from the
Bureau of State Audits (State Auditor).
Specifically, this bill :
1)Allows a legislative body of a local agency to meet in closed
session for the purpose of discussing its response to the
final draft audit report, a confidential document prepared by
the State Auditor, and further specifies that after the public
release of the audit report that a local agency must then meet
in open session if it wants to deliberate further.
2)Allows a state body to meet in closed session for the purpose
of discussing the confidential final draft audit report
prepared by the State Auditor and further specifies that after
the public release of the audit report that the state body
must meet in open session if it wants to deliberate further.
EXISTING LAW
1)Provides, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act), that
the meetings of the legislative body of a local agency are
required to be conducted openly, publicly, and after public
notice of agenda items, with specified exceptions.
2)Provides, pursuant to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act
(Bagley-Keene Act), that all meetings of a state body shall be
open and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend
any meeting of a state body except as otherwise provided, and
that its purpose is to allow the public to attend, observe,
monitor, and participate as fully as possible in the
decision-making process of state bodies.
3)Prohibits any officer or employee of any publicly created
AB 1827
Page 2
entity that has assisted the State Auditor in the course of
any audit or that has received a draft copy of any report for
comment or review from divulging the particulars, and further
states that violation of this provision will result in a
misdemeanor.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Neither the Brown Act nor the Bagley-Keene Act includes an
exception that would allow closed session discussion of a
confidential draft audit report from the State Auditor.
2)According to the author, a state or local government body's
inability to meet in closed session to discuss ongoing audits
presents a persistent challenge for the State Auditor. While
state and local legislative bodies respond to the reports,
they are often incomplete due to the Catch-22 of
confidentiality and open meeting law requirements. The
conflict prevents the auditee's board members from meeting as
a group to discuss a report's accuracy amongst themselves or
with their staff. More importantly, it does not allow board
members to formulate a plan of action based on the
recommendations or to discuss their disagreement with the
findings, resulting in the board's plan of action not being
included in the report. This partial response hampers the
Legislature's ability to fulfill its oversight role.
AB 1827, requested by the State Auditor, permits state and local
governmental bodies to meet in closed session for the narrow
purpose of discussing its response to the confidential draft
report.
3)In December 2003, the State Auditor published a report
regarding the California Integrated Waste Management Board
(Board). The Board is organized under the State of
California's Environmental Protection Agency and as such is
subject to state open meeting laws. While the subject of the
report is not relevant to AB 1827, the Board specifically
mentioned in its official response that it could not
thoroughly respond to the report because it is bound by State
Auditor confidentiality requirements. The Board stated that,
"[d]ue to the confidential nature of the document and the fact
that the Board may not deliberate except in a noticed public
AB 1827
Page 3
meeting, the Board itself had not been able to discuss this
response."
4)The State Association of County Auditors have a
"favors-if-amended" position if the bill was broadened to
include county audits pursuant to Government Code Sections
26893 and 26909.
5)Technical Amendments.
a) The language on page 2, lines 22 - 23, refers to "a
draft audit report as permitted by Section 11126.2". The
language on page 4, lines 3 - 4, and on page 7, lines 37 -
38, refer to "a confidential final draft audit report from
the Bureau of State Audits ?".
The Committee may wish to consider an amendment that will
make the language consistent throughout the bill by
amending page 2, lines 22 - 23 such that it reads:
(8) To consider its response to a confidential final draft
audit report as permitted by Section 11126.2.
b) On page 3, line 14, insert the word "Web" such that it
reads:
? address of the Internet Web site ?
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Association of California Water Agencies
California School Boards Association
California Special Districts Association
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Chris Lindstrom / G. O. / (916)
319-2531